Re: How can external organization reference draft W3C specifications

[adding AB]

Steve, this seems like a sufficiently important question that we want to 
somehow fast-track it into the AB issues list and concerns - maybe even 
get it into the current poll.

Giuseppe, are you aware of the current AB activity?  I'm curious that 
this went to the public-w3process list (which I thought was the CG), and 
not to the AB.  I thought we had brought the Chairs into the AB discussion.

Jeff


On 3/19/2012 8:30 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> Thanks for the question, I created ISSUE-5 
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/5 ...
>
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:21:45 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale 
> <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote:
>
>> Personally I would prefer option 3 below (with option 1 when applicable)
>
> [point to a "latest draft" reference].
>
>> The reason is simple: specs tend to be around for a long time and the 
>> references inside may not be updated after the initial work. If this 
>> happens, we end up with some deployments stuck on old versions of a 
>> given spec.
>
> I proposed in the HTML group that there should be a "latest version" 
> URI that actually provides a escription of the different kinds of 
> latest version available, from "the editor's sunday-morning mistakes 
> included" to "the last formally stabilised version from years ago, 
> known to be full of errors which are also known", and several things 
> in between.
>
>> To mitigate the "moving target" concern I was proposing one of the 
>> following options (non mutually exclusive):
>
> For reference guidance (following the principle that deep linking is 
> legitimate, we shouldn't try to limit what people *can* do), I think 
> we should provide something like the same document I describe above, 
> with a recommendation that some baseline is considered for the sake of 
> stability, but with a clear statement that since a later draft may 
> have resolved real problems, the specification of any given feature in 
> the latest draft should also be referenced.
>
> Of course there are cases where referencing just some latest draft is 
> enough, and others that will really really only want some old and 
> known-to-be-inferior version for real stability...
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
>> A. mandate support for at least the version available in date X (but 
>> not prevent people to move to a newer spec if available). X could be 
>> the date of publication of the spec that contains the reference.
>> B. make a generic reference to the specs but "name" the features to 
>> support. e.g. you could say "support the canvas element as specified 
>> in [HTML5]"
>>
>> /g
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:17:42 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale 
>> <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear W3C Process Community Group chairs and participants,
>>>
>>> we (=Web&TV IG chairs and staff contacts) got a liaison letter 
>>> (attached)
>>>  from the Open IPTV Forum asking about how they should handle 
>>> references to
>>> W3C specifications that are not yet Recommendations.
>>> The liaison letter lists a set of options (with pro/cons) and ask 
>>> the W3C
>>> for advice on how to move forward and how this issue has been 
>>> addressed in
>>> other cases.
>>>
>>> The Web and TV IG held a telco [2] and had some initial discussion on
>>> possible options.
>>> There was no consensus on how to deal with the issue but the following
>>> options (non mutually exclusive) were mentioned:
>>>
>>> 1. For all specs referenced by HTML5, indirectly reference them through
>>> html5 specification (to avoid inconsistencies in references and 
>>> reduce the
>>> number of open ended references)
>>> 2. Reference dated snapshots
>>> 3. Reference a generic undated TF version (e.g. as done by EPUB)
>>>
>>> (note: the letter also list other options)
>>>
>>> In general, the IG participants felt that was important for the W3C 
>>> to be
>>> looking into this problem (that is common to many organizations) and
>>> formulate some policy/best practices.
>>> That is why I'm fwd this to you.
>>>
>>> Do you have any recommendations on this topic or do you think having a
>>> general policy on this will be in scope of your CG?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> /g on behalf of the web&tv IG chairs
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] www.oipf.tv
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2012/03/12-webtv-minutes.html
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Monday, 19 March 2012 13:42:32 UTC